Letters to the Editor

Published 10:00 pm, Wednesday, June 25, 2003

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Court cleverly disguises different kind of racism Let me see if I understand the Supreme Court's decision on affirmative action correctly. First, race-based discrimination is permissible as long as it is directed against the individuals of racial groups whose presence on campus does not "enhance" the educational experience.

Second, racial quotas are not permissible, but representation "goals" are.

Third, these representation goals cannot be achieved via blatantly racist procedures such as the one at the University of Michigan, which assigns extra points to members of the appropriate racial and ethnic groups. Presumably, these goals should be achieved through unwritten and less obvious procedures such as understanding winks and nods exchanged between committee members who make the admissions decisions.

At first I thought that the Supreme Court's decision was just another example of addled liberal thinking, but on closer inspection, it is actually a very clever ruling. By eliminating the paper trail and other quantifiable measures of racial discrimination, it will make it very difficult to establish in court that such discrimination has occurred. Thus, future court challenges are stymied and affirmative action can continue unchecked and unabated into the indefinite future.

By the way, how much longer must affirmative action continue before whites become one of the eligible groups? After all, a few decades from now, it certainly will be possible to claim that whites have been historically discriminated against.

Does this decision make Brown moot? So which decision by the Supreme Court is the right one? Brown v. Board of Education, which mandates equal access to education, or the Michigan case, which tells us racial discrimination is permitted?

No one can logically support or legally follow both decisions. It is as simple as choosing equal access or unequal access. As long as society pays attention to race, race will matter.

Colorblind and "content of character" need to start some time; why not now?

John MountShoreline

Justices very confused about their authority This week's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to continue affirmative action programs again validates Judge Robert Bork's comments during his confirmation hearing.

Bork stated, "If you can put something into the U.S. Constitution, you can also take something out of it." In this case, that would be ignoring the equal protection clause for all U.S. citizens under the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

When affirmative action first came onto the American scene, the logic was to correct the injustices of the past. Now affirmative action appears to be a vehicle to create racial diversity in schools, neighborhoods and the workplace through social engineering. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of racial diversity. As it has many times in the past, the Supreme Court has again overstepped its authority of the judicial branch of the Constitution and has become confused about its function and made law totally ignoring its responsibilities under the Constitution. Is it any wonder why it is so important to our country who is appointed to the highest courts of the land?

Facility needs to make room for more passengers We were traveling on Saturday through Sea-Tac Airport, arriving at 10 a.m. for a 12:30 p.m. flight. When we arrived, several busloads of cruise passengers started to show up at the airport and all hell broke loose.

We were bumped from the check-in lines by cruise ship passengers and it took us until 11:40 to check our bags. We then went to the security line that was out the door, winding around the inside of the airport. We finally reached our gate at 1:20 pm. We, of course, missed our flight and spent the rest of the day at the airport trying to get stand-by flights out, to no avail.

We were forced to spend an additional night in Seattle, taking the only available flight for the next day at 6 a.m. We have read articles about the backup. People in Seattle and Tacoma need to know that two hours before a flight leaves is not early enough to get to the airport.

Citizens of Seattle and Tacoma, this is your airport and it is in a major crises. You need to demand that immediate changes be made; six months from now will do no good.

We have flown to many airports around the United States, Europe and Africa and have never encountered such utter chaos.

The cruise ships bring in big dollars to Seattle and surrounding areas and there needs to be accommodations made for this influx if you want to continue to host these ships in your ports.

We suggest that the Transportation Security Administration, the airport and airlines work together to come up with some solutions to this problem, possibly a separate building where the thousands of cruise passengers can be handled outside the airport building itself.

We consider the current situation very dangerous and volatile. For the safety of the airport employees and customers, this cannot be tolerated.

Noise from third runway is the sound money makes The anti-third runway groups predicted statement "We lost but we fought a good fight" will sound hollow, if not sick, in view of the facts.

According to city records since 1992, Burien spent $4,305,753, Des Moines $6,002,855, Normandy Park $3,993,528, Federal Way $480,000 and Tukwila $857,000 for a total of $15,639,136 trying to stop it. Of this amount, the Airport Communities Coalition (ACC) received $12,558,316, the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs received $848,112, and $2,232,711 went for miscellaneous.

The anti group is an extreme minority compared with those in favor of the runway, which includes the federal government, the FAA, the Legislature, the King County Council and non-NIMBY citizens. Even the Legislature rolled over for the Port of Seattle by reducing the fill standards, which was the anti-runway group's last weapon.

Sure, the airport noise is a negative, but consider the positive: the huge economic engine that the port represents. If the airport were to be relocated with the local loss of the associated jobs and businesses, we would really hear complaints. Remember, the airport noise is the noise of money, money that helps fuel the local economy.

Like it or not, all must recognize that the third runway will he completed. At this point in time, only fools would continue funding the anti effort.

Unfortunately for the local taxpayers, most local council members are fools on this issue. The top priority of the new majority of the Des Moines City Council is to restore the ACC funding.

What will it take to stop this madness? Maybe a citizens' initiative against the funding would do the trick.

Joseph C. CoomerBurien

SUBSTANTIATION

Sub-headline isn't reflected in article Your sub-headline on the June 17 front page reads "Ambushes reinforce belief that forces loyal to Saddam are reorganizing." Then the article substantiates this only by quoting an army source from Central Command. Is this what journalism has come to?

What about the fact that the army was dissolved and 400,000 armed Iraqis were put out of work, or the shootings of the peaceful protesters or the random and often violent house searches, or the fact that the whole world (and certainly the Iraqis) think that the United States and Britain lied about the reason for the war (WMDs), or the lack of concern by our occupying forces about the rampant looting and lack of security, or the widespread (and true) belief that we are going to privatize the Iraqi oil industry and give the concessions to our own companies, or the continued backsliding on our pledge to give the government back to Iraqi control?

Is it impossible that some of these issues are creating the continuing resistance? Is it not the journalist who would wonder at these questions and ask more than one source, particularly the source that has immense motivation for slanting the story? And is it not the editor who would recognize the shortcomings of this material, desire for his or her paper to be better than a parrot of the government and look elsewhere for better reporting?